Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Despite airstrikes, ISIS forces draw nearer to Baghdad

Published October 11, 2014, Source - Fox News

 

Despite airstrikes from the U.S.-led coalition, Islamic State militants are in a position to wreak havoc on Baghdad after making gains in nearby territories, adding to the sense of siege in the Iraqi capital.

 

Yet some military experts believe that the terror group, who now control a large territory along the border of Iraq and Syria, won’t be able to defeat the forces now massed around the capital.

 

However their new position does give them the ability to wreak terror in Iraq's biggest city, with its suicide attacks and other assaults further eroding confidence in Iraq's nascent federal government and its troops, whose soldiers already fled the Islamic State group's initial lightning advance in June.

 

"It's not plausible at this point to envision ISIL taking control of Baghdad, but they can make Baghdad so miserable that it would threaten the legitimacy of the central government," Richard Brennan, an Iraq expert with RAND Corporation and former Department of Defense policymake told The Associated Press.

 

The siege fears in Baghdad stem from recent gains made by the Islamic State group in the so-called Baghdad Belt -- the final stretch between Anbar province, where the group gained ground in January, and Baghdad. The group has had a presence in the Baghdad Belt since spring, Iraqi officials say, but recent advances have sparked new worries.

 

The Islamic militants have reportedly infiltrated the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, not far from the runway perimeter of Baghdad's international airport.

 

Islamic State’s proximity to the airport is especially worrisome, because they are now armed with shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles with a 20-mile range, according to the Iraqi Defense Ministry. The weapons, which Islamic State has grabbed up along with tanks, helicopters and fighter planes as it has seized up vast territory in northern Syria and Iraq, could allow the militants to shut down the airport.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. military said Saturday it launched an airstrike north of the town of Tal Afar, hitting a small Islamic State fighting unit and destroying an armed vehicle. It said two other airstrikes northwest of Hit in Anbar province targeted two small militant units.

 

Last week, Islamic State group fighters seized the towns of Hit and neighboring Kubaisa, sending Iraqi soldiers fleeing and leaving a nearby military base with its stockpile of weapons at risk of capture. The U.S.-led coalition recently launched two airstrikes northwest of Hit, U.S. Central Command said Saturday.

 

To the south of Baghdad, security forces fight to hold onto the town of Jurf al-Sukr, and to the north, one Sunni tribe has held onto the town of Duluiyah despite an Islamic State group's onslaught. However, Islamic State group fighters have taken over a number of towns in Diyala province, east of Baghdad.

 

"It's scary," said Maha Ismail, who recently visited one of Baghdad's new shopping malls. "But we have seen a lot worse than this so we are gathering despite all the warnings."

 

Islamic State group says it has a foothold inside Baghdad, having claimed responsibility for a number of attacks in the city, particularly in the Sadr City neighborhood -- a Shiite stronghold. In August, the group claimed responsibility for an attack on a Shiite mosque in New Baghdad, and another in the Shiite-majority district of Utaifiya in Baghdad, which together killed 26 people.

 

Some attacks go unclaimed, raising fears that other groups may look to capitalize on the tensions provoked by the Islamic State group. On Saturday, a series of unclaimed car bomb attacks in Iraq's capital killed 38 people in Shiite areas, authorities said.

 

Police officials said the first bombing happened Saturday night when a suicide bomber rammed his explosive-laden car into a security checkpoint in Baghdad's northern district of Khazimiyah, killing 13 people, including three police officers, and wounding 28.

 

 The second car bombing, targeting a commercial street in Shula district in northwestern Baghdad, killed seven people and wounded 18, police said. The blast damaged several shops and cars.

 

 Also in Shula, police said a suicide car bomb attack on a security checkpoint killed 18 people and wounded dozens others.

 

Yet analysts, like Brennan from the RAND Corporation, say capturing Baghdad remains beyond the Islamic State group's ability. At its worst, the group might "start pressing into the western areas of Baghdad, going into the Sunni areas of Baghdad and pressing up against the Tigris (River) -- if not controlling it, then at least testing the control of the central government," he said.

 

Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, said Saturday that the Iraqi military "continues to maintain firm control of the city and there is no imminent threat of an effective" offensive by the Islamic State group.

 

"While there are pockets of ISIL in the vicinity of Baghdad, (Iraqi security forces) continue to conduct operations to engage these elements and push back with the support of U.S. airstrikes when necessary," Ryder said.

 

Beyond the U.S.-coordinated airstrikes and the massing of Iraqi troops, the country's religious and ethnic lines likely will staunch any advance by the Sunni militants of the Islamic State group. From Baghdad further south, Iraq's population is overwhelmingly Shiite and the lands there are home to some of its most important shrines.

 

Already, Shiite militias back up government forces in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq -- their flags and symbols provocatively displayed across the capital. Such militias, like Iran-supported Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, "are battle tested," said David L. Phillips, the director of the Peace-building and Rights Program at Columbia University. Challenging them likely would become a bloody slog for the Islamic State group, he said.

 

"The militias are not bound by rules of war," he added. "They and (the Islamic State group) share one thing in common: Neither is bound by the Geneva Conventions."

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Source - http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...al-though-fight-in/?

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

They seem to be "twiddling their thumbs and babbling uncontrollably" while ISIS, from all reports, are constantly making advances.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste of money, time and lives only to repeat it over and over. If ISIS is defeated, another group will arise and challenge America again. This is a never ending tale.

FM
Originally Posted by Cobra:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

They seem to be "twiddling their thumbs and babbling uncontrollably" while ISIS, from all reports, are constantly making advances.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste of money, time and lives only to repeat it over and over. If ISIS is defeated, another group will arise and challenge America again. This is a never ending tale.

Baghdad will not fall. Isis are just dead men walking. The world is simply not yet arrived at that critical mass where they will say enough is enough. There is no place on the world for ISIS. Even if they win the state they cannot survive except in a medieval reality. Money dries up, medicine get's used up, food decreases and so will bullets. Who do you think will tolerate a new Brahamin parasitic class or how can they survive where there are no people?

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

I am naturally curious and read before i offer opinions. I do not make them up. The US is almost self sufficient on oil. It can get all it needs from Canada. If the pipeline develops it will not have to buy any oil from any other place.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

I am naturally curious and read before i offer opinions. I do not make them up. The US is almost self sufficient on oil. It can get all it needs from Canada. If the pipeline develops it will not have to buy any oil from any other place.

1. Perhaps, you are the only individual with that quality.

 

2. While indeed Canada has vast reserves for oil, the realization of the pipelines and associated works are extremely far in the future with numerous issues yet to be resolved.

 

Of note .. The tar sands oil project in north-east of Alberta is in existence for numerous years -- at least 40plus years. Why the US_of_A has not pursued the opportunities to secure its oil supply from Alberta, Canada rather than from Iraq and other locations in that area?

FM
Originally Posted by Cobra:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

They seem to be "twiddling their thumbs and babbling uncontrollably" while ISIS, from all reports, are constantly making advances.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste of money, time and lives only to repeat it over and over. If ISIS is defeated, another group will arise and challenge America again. This is a never ending tale.

I thought there was mention of a solution somewhere in your D-G-like post. Any solution, oh good sage?!

Kari
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

D-G you need to "Become aware of the facts and issues" Where in God's name is oil in Bhagdad? IT's a capital City fool.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

They seem to be "twiddling their thumbs and babbling uncontrollably" while ISIS, from all reports, are constantly making advances.

Typical D-G post - stupid and with nothing to add. What an idiot!

You Kari - GNI username - have constantly been making your statements personally against me and I have stayed away from making any response to you.

 

Note -- this is the first and final advise to you.

 

"Should you continue to make personal uncalled-for statements to me, it will then be an issue requiring a decision by the Administrator of GNI."

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

There is no US dependence on Iraq oil. That's a stupid mantra that fools like you repeat without even knowing the facts. The US daily supply of oil from Iraq is around 2% and that's the highest it's been in a while. It can easily be replaced by other sources. 

Mars
Last edited by Mars
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

I am naturally curious and read before i offer opinions. I do not make them up. The US is almost self sufficient on oil. It can get all it needs from Canada. If the pipeline develops it will not have to buy any oil from any other place.

1. Perhaps, you are the only individual with that quality.

 

2. While indeed Canada has vast reserves for oil, the realization of the pipelines and associated works are extremely far in the future with numerous issues yet to be resolved.

 

Of note .. The tar sands oil project in north-east of Alberta is in existence for numerous years -- at least 40plus years. Why the US_of_A has not pursued the opportunities to secure its oil supply from Alberta, Canada rather than from Iraq and other locations in that area?

 I am gradually coming toi the conclusion that you are a truly moronic person. Canada's tar sands oil was there since the carboniferous period but we recently developed a process to remove it. The example given was not to speak to this oil reserve or pipelines ( oil is moved presently without it and has been the case for decades!), the idea was to illustrate that Iraq's oil is not a focus of the US in this struggle with ISIS. It is focused on a bunch of barbarians running around murdering people in the name of islam. They have no viability as organizers of a state. They are already doomed because of their truly genocidal behavior. 

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

They seem to be "twiddling their thumbs and babbling uncontrollably" while ISIS, from all reports, are constantly making advances.

Typical D-G post - stupid and with nothing to add. What an idiot!

You Kari - GNI username - have constantly been making your statements personally against me and I have stayed away from making any response to you.

 

Note -- this is the first and final advise to you.

 

"Should you continue to make personal uncalled-for statements to me, it will then be an issue requiring a decision by the Administrator of GNI."

I used the word idiot. Mars uses stupid. Stormy uses moronic. What does that tell you, fool?

 

What yuh gon do?! Shape up and answer our responses, and stop whining about what you're being described as. Make sensible posts and that will change these adjectives. The US has a significant dependence on Iraq for its oil......sheesh......Do you know how much the US produces daily? Do you know how much it gets from Canada, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela daily. Those 4 sources account for over 90% of the US daily oil supply.

 

amnswer the danm responses and stop with your stupid, moronic, idiotic one-liners. Or get the hell off the Board, pidgiwink - there, another word to make you whine and cry.

Kari
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

I am naturally curious and read before i offer opinions. I do not make them up. The US is almost self sufficient on oil. It can get all it needs from Canada. If the pipeline develops it will not have to buy any oil from any other place.

1. Perhaps, you are the only individual with that quality.

 

2. While indeed Canada has vast reserves for oil, the realization of the pipelines and associated works are extremely far in the future with numerous issues yet to be resolved.

 

Of note .. The tar sands oil project in north-east of Alberta is in existence for numerous years -- at least 40plus years. Why the US_of_A has not pursued the opportunities to secure its oil supply from Alberta, Canada rather than from Iraq and other locations in that area?

 I am gradually coming toi the conclusion that you are a truly moronic person. Canada's tar sands oil was there since the carboniferous period but we recently developed a process to remove it. The example given was not to speak to this oil reserve or pipelines ( oil is moved presently without it and has been the case for decades!), the idea was to illustrate that Iraq's oil is not a focus of the US in this struggle with ISIS. It is focused on a bunch of barbarians running around murdering people in the name of islam. They have no viability as organizers of a state. They are already doomed because of their truly genocidal behavior. 

Oil in the middle east is the bottom line, specific emphasis on Iraq.

 

Whether it is ISIS today or other organizations in the past or future, oil and US_of_A's interests take precedent.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Baghdad indeed may not fall. It conceivably would remain in tight grips of the US_of_A because of its oil resources. However, the country(ies) could disintegrate into areas as separate entities.

Why dont you go and look up where the oil wells are located. It is best the country be broken up but who will decide where the intermingled Suni and Shia could create states. Again, look at the map.

Become aware of the facts and issues, Stormborn.

I think you live in a box. The facts are the US does not give a damn about the oil in Iraq. Further, the Kurd are the only reliable supplier and the US already assist them and they sell to other than the US. China buys most of it. The Chinese are the ones with vested interest and they should be there defending the people. But since they are predators they skipped out as soon as trouble appeared on the horizon.

Perhaps, you are of the opinion that, similar to you, others live in a box.

 

Also, check your views on US_of_A need/dependence on oil from Iraq.

I am naturally curious and read before i offer opinions. I do not make them up. The US is almost self sufficient on oil. It can get all it needs from Canada. If the pipeline develops it will not have to buy any oil from any other place.

1. Perhaps, you are the only individual with that quality.

 

2. While indeed Canada has vast reserves for oil, the realization of the pipelines and associated works are extremely far in the future with numerous issues yet to be resolved.

 

Of note .. The tar sands oil project in north-east of Alberta is in existence for numerous years -- at least 40plus years. Why the US_of_A has not pursued the opportunities to secure its oil supply from Alberta, Canada rather than from Iraq and other locations in that area?

I am gradually coming toi the conclusion that you are a truly moronic person. Canada's tar sands oil was there since the carboniferous period but we recently developed a process to remove it. The example given was not to speak to this oil reserve or pipelines ( oil is moved presently without it and has been the case for decades!), the idea was to illustrate that Iraq's oil is not a focus of the US in this struggle with ISIS. It is focused on a bunch of barbarians running around murdering people in the name of islam. They have no viability as organizers of a state. They are already doomed because of their truly genocidal behavior. 

Another revelation of yourself reflecting in the mirror, Stormborn.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×